WELCOME TO "BELGISTAN"MUST WATCH VIDEO FROM BELGIUM! Here's an interesting little video clip. They seem to be perfectly happy telling everyone what's in store and nobody seems to care. (THE POLICE DO NOT GO IN THEIR AREAS AS WELL)This is a wake-up call for the U.S. When you want a glimpse of the future for your grandchildren sit down and watch this short 6 minute news video. This is what is in store for the USA and our grandkids if we maintain our present course.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Please do watch.......America needs to wise up.
A TIMELY VIDEO (OUCH!) — CND
A MUST WATCH
VIDEO FROM BELGIUM***
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What's going on with Freewill? He failed to show up to his trial last week, warrant was issued.
Jurisdiction has been challenged.
Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533
Standing must also be proven to show jurisdiction. In order to bring a case in court, litigants must have "standing" to sue. In order to have standing, Supreme Court doctrine requires that parties have an "injury in fact." This injury must be specific and concrete - rather the speculative and abstract. Standing requires the violation of a legal right that causes damage. “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) and:
“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.” Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998).
“To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The test has three elements:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”
The Lee/Cleveland Cliffs majority also held that a litigant must meet the Lujan
standing requirements regardless of whether the Legislature expressly created a cause of action or conferred standing on the litigant because, although the Legislature has the power to create causes of actions, it does not have the power to expand the judicial authority granted to the courts by the Michigan Constitution. See Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280, 302-303; 737 NW2d 447 (2007). The Court also held that a litigant must meet Lujan’s requirements in order to bring a declaratory action. Associated Builders & Contractors v Dep’t of Consumer & Indus Servs Dir, 472 Mich 117, 124-127; 693 NW2d 374 (2005).
Explain and show how the action is of the kind authorized by statute. Martin v Chandid, 128 F2d 73 1; Pacific Mills v Kekefick, 99 F2d 18 8.
All orders or judgments issued by a judge in a court of limited jurisdiction must contain the findings of the court showing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, not allegations that the court has jurisdiction.
Once Jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. Any court action is null and void by law as if never contemplated until proven
Freewill, the Alleged Defendant here in before this Honorable Court and formally challenge any and all jurisdiction, PERSONEL AND SUBJECT MATTER AS APPLIED TO freewill, Apostlle No. 104325-1-3042090-194, OR HIS FANILY, please see title 5 u.s. code sections # 557 and # 706, once challenged the plaintiffs must prove jurisdiction HAGENS VS. LAVINE 415 U.S. 528,AT 533 McNUTT V.S. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPT CORP, 56 S.CT 502, because I have been totally denied MY BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF DUE POROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 5 U.A. CODE SECTION # 557 AND # 706, AND ALL JURISDICTION CEASES BY LAW, EVEN HAD YOU IN FACT PROVEN LAWFUL JURISDICTION, YOU LOST IT BY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW VIOLATIONS.
That's great but you're still going to lose whatever money you paid to bond out of jail and you're going to spend another chunk of time in jail until they set a new date for the trial, plus I'm assuming extra charges for not showing up to the trial again.
Freewill, let me put this as gently as possible -- you don't have a ghost of a chance, if this is the best you can do. The misspellings and run-on sentences won't help you, either.
No, this isn't anything.. When dealing with Demonstration Court Process, anything filed by a defendant simply gets thrown out. They do what they want no matter what you file or do. That is what I am taking down.
Stiles Lake, what have you done against the present system of piracy? Seeing as you seem so intelligent about it... You can easily say something will not work, Asking you to put my finger on what does.
For me, I am suing the whole system with a real court of record with a grand jury of the people. And yes one does exist! Reference the documentation posted on the left side of this blog.
Freewill, you're facing minor traffic related charges, at most you were facing credit for time served if you simply showed up to the trial. Now you're just going to end up with a far longer jail sentence because you decided to go fugitive. This is not a smart decision on any level.
The matter has been removed to Federal Court under title 28 U.S.C. section 1446 (can't get a fair trial in a state court)as of November 23rd last year. The state courts have been violating "Michigan Court Rules" MCR 2.003(a)(1) for not recruising themselves, Violating MCR 2.603 (a) through (d) and Title 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 for ignoring the challenge of Jurisdiction. The state courts have yet to even produce an injury as required for a basis for a complaint.
5 years ago I made the choice to do this when I chose to rebut the contracts between me and the bankrupt corporation franchise state. I did not just do this for personal reasons, it is a part of a much bigger plan to bring forward the De Jure form of constitutional government. There are many intelligent people involved including a particular well known man that has been doing this for more than 55 years now. He is on a first name basis in every Federal court within 200 miles and has a 100% win rate. So do not preach to me about what I should have done as what I am doing is way over many other's heads. As you have noticed, It is all based on a traffic ticket that was issued after the rebuttal. How else are we going to set a trap for them that is non violent and does not involve an injured party? The state judges have now realized what I am doing and the last time I was in front of one of them, she was offering me my freedom with a bribe to consent to jurisdiction with all fees waived and I refused. She started shaking and became very nervous. She then released me because she had to. In the last 2 months, I have had state police and sheriff deputies follow me and never pull me over. I have a plate that was registered to me several years ago on the back of my truck. There is no registration sticker. It is for ID purposes only. Though the state courts may have issued warrants, they are not enforcing them against me. They must have a code attached to me to leave me alone. The Federal court has not set a date yet. This may go for the next 2 to 5 years. The Federal court and the U.S. Marshalls honor my apostille and are very friendly with me. The state courts ignore it completely. So, I don't care what has been done as time served or dollar amounts. Has nothing to do with my mission. Everyone who has touched me has dirty hands for violating my rights. Ever hear of the term "Tar Baby"? That is what I am. The state courts violated due process before they abducted me. Their original warrants were null and void because they were issued after the challenge of Jurisdiction was filed. Under Trazavent v. Tampa Bay Florida, they owe me 1.8 million dollars per day for 137 days. 500 million punitive damages, 200 million violations for Act Of State/Apostille, 250 million for copyright violations, and much more. Ever hear of fruit of the poison tree? All their claims are based on a suspension of license when the license was rebutted and returned prior. A clear intended fraud against me from the start. I have them by the balls and I am squeezing them very hard.
Nobody else has the guts to do this!! Nobody! Not even you. Many friends and acquaintances are thanking me for what I am doing. And I will NOT post the details other than what I have put up here already.
Oh, as a side note.. Why don't you look up Title 18 U.S.C. sections 2381 through 2384. Research what those sections were and why they were changed. Those sections were for the judges that violate people's rights to be hung by the neck until dead dead dead. I'll give you one clue as to why those sections were changed to exclude the hanging parts.... :D
Freewill, let's just say that I disagree with all of your premises. To explain why would take up much too much of our time; and besides, this is your forum, so I don't want to be the skunk at your lawn party, and you can find what I would say on other online forums.
I'll wait to see if you win your case, and the win withstands appellate review, before I'll find myself able to change my mind. Good luck!
Read up on the Contempt of Constitution and the Quo Warranto Board of Inquiry referenced and linked on the left side of this blog. American Juris Prudence 38a reference the section stating that when in the presence of a De Jure Grand Jury the DeFacto must step down. Also reference the Quo Warranto Board of Inquiry at http://michigandejure.org/m/
Hope that may give you some idea of my doings...
By the way, after decided by a De Jure grand jury, there is no appellate. Decision is final.
Your federal case was dismissed man.
Post a Comment